News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Author
Topic: New testament worship "style"? (Read 7483 times)

Hi all. I'm a catechumen (going to be Chrismated on 13th Aug). I come from a mixed evangelical background, and live in Perth, Australia.

Can anyone help me with a question regarding NT worship? I understand that Orthodox worship is "a living continuity with the synagogue, the temple and the early church" This is the subtitle of a book called "Orthodox Worship" by Williams and Anstall that I've just read. But this book does not address scriptures like 1 Cor 14:26 which says, "When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up." This seems to imply a much more free-form style of worship service. Can anyone help me out here? Thanks!

My first thought is that that verse doesn't seem to be speaking about what actually was occurring in the worship, but rather what gifts were present. Then the verses that follow appear to describe how these gifts are to be utilized in the context of the worshipful gathering.

Yes, that's the book that I've got. But it doesn't deal with some of the scriptures that seem to present more informal style of worship service. This is what my wife - who is quite wary of my interest in the Orthodox Church - is asking about, and I'm not too sure how to answer her.

Also, and more importantly from a Scriptural perspective, the book of Revelation, when opening up Heavens so we can see what goes on there, shows us, very clearly that Eternity is liturgical, or, better saying, Liturgy is Time bending to Eternity.

"the oldest theory, according to which the author of the Apocalypse reproduces in his work the liturgical act of the early Church,[26] even without insisting that the addition itself originates in the first century AD.; or, finally, if one endorses the more reliable theory that the Apocalypse is a determining factor for later liturgical self-conscience of the Church;[27] the bottom line in all these cases is that the Apocalypse is, or at least should be, the key to discover the real meaning of Christian liturgy and its relation to history."

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Also, and more importantly from a Scriptural perspective, the book of Revelation, when opening up Heavens so we can see what goes on there, shows us, very clearly that Eternity is liturgical, or, better saying, Liturgy is Time bending to Eternity.

"the oldest theory, according to which the author of the Apocalypse reproduces in his work the liturgical act of the early Church,[26] even without insisting that the addition itself originates in the first century AD.; or, finally, if one endorses the more reliable theory that the Apocalypse is a determining factor for later liturgical self-conscience of the Church;[27] the bottom line in all these cases is that the Apocalypse is, or at least should be, the key to discover the real meaning of Christian liturgy and its relation to history."

Lots of good stuff there, Fabio. Thanks.

I've haven't had time yet to give it a thorough look. These sites seem to have more of the - very interesting and very useful - information about the continuity of liturgical worship from Heaven - Tabernacle - Temple - Synagogue - Church - Heaven (this is very simplified, of course). This is great stuff. But they still don't seem to deal with the questions of a genuine enquirer who reads their New Testament and says, "These guys met from house to house. They shared meals together. They were encouraged to participate by bringing songs and scripture readings along to share. Surely the biblical evidence shows that the NT church was very informal!"

Part of the problem may be the way you are interpreting the texts. When I was a catechumen, my priest gave a series of classes about the history of liturgy.

Protestants (of which I was one) tend to read the Bible in a vacuum. This leads to various different outlooks on what to do with tradition not spelled out in the Bible. Some would say it's up to the individual; others would say anything not authorized is prohibited; still others would say anything not prohibited is authorized. The problem with all these outlooks is that they ignore, among other things, the cultural context.

First-century people only knew liturgical worship. There was no such thing as "informal worship." For the Jews, all they knew was the Temple and its elaborate ceremonies, and the Synagogue and its liturgical structure. The pagan Greeks also had their liturgical worship.

They met in houses because the Synagogue kicked them out. This is described in the NT somewhere, maybe Acts, but I don't remember exactly. The fledgling religion was tiny, was probably considered a cult by everyone, and the Jews considered it heresy before long. There was nowhere else for them to meet. But tiny Orthodox mission churches still meet in houses, celebrating the same rites that are celebrated in the greatest cathedrals on earth, so house worship does not mean informal.

It is believed the Eucharist was indeed celebrated in the context of a full meal, much in the same vein as the Passover meal. This full meal fell out of use, it is believed, as early as the 2nd century. But regardless, the Passover meal, that the Apostles were very familiar with, is not informal; it is a structured liturgical service. A meal does not mean informal.

Part of the Synagogue worship was indeed a lot more "congregational participation". People would take turns preaching from the Moses Seat, and prophets prophecied, and so forth. (As for music, we have a strong musical tradition and welcome singers with open arms.) However, some of those spiritual gifts (prophecy, tongues, etc) died out very early, before the 2nd century.

The hierarchical structure of the Church (bishops, priests, deacons, etc.) was clearly in place by around AD 60 and the various roles came more clearly into definition. Again, these changes occurred under the Apostles' supervision and direction. Part of the point is to protect the integrity of the Church's teachings. The teaching authority flows from the bishop, and the priests and deacons are his authorized representatives. They teach on his behalf. But lay people, while they teach and serve in many ways, do not preach sermons and such.

If there was a truly "informal" period in the Church, it was very brief. Probably a decade or less. The Apostles themselves oversaw and directed the development of liturgy until St John died in AD 100, and we know from the Didache and other writings that the Church had liturgical prayer in the 1st century.

Under the Roman persecution, there were a plethora of rites—every local church probably did things differently—though the services themselves were surely liturgical. After the Edict of Milan, there was a movement to standardize the liturgies of the local churches so people and clergy could celebrate with other people. Over time, the cathedral rite of Constantinople became the standard rite used throughout the Church, and except for the Western Rite Orthodox, it remains that way.

And even outside the Orthodox Church, we can see that Christians have always retained the memory of this reality and regarded worship as liturgical. Aside from a few radical reformers, even most Protestant worship was liturgical until the past several decades. It is simply the way Christianity has always been.

As one old priest pointed out to me, "Why do people say they want 'old time religion,' but they want modern medicine?"

In the early days of the Church, there was a lot less 'formality' because were just getting organized within a context of persecution. They had to meet in homes because they did not have the ability or means to do otherwise. They had to all contribute because there were so few of them.

You will find in the modern era that Orthodox have at times conducted themselves in such ways. You might be interested in reading about the modern persecutions under Communism, and even now what is happening in places in the Middle East where Christianity can no longer be openly practiced.

As Christianity grew to more and more people, it became necessary to make things more formalized because of problems like heresy and immorality. But, I think the most important aspect, is that of the spiritual necessity of hardship.

The traditions of the Church, its formality and rigorous structure, its complicated services and long prayers, its restrictive calendar of fasts and feasts.. these are all hardships. They are difficult to carry out. Modern people have been so trained to find the easy way (just look at modern marketing) that they bristle at all these 'rules.' Yet, they serve a purpose. They place a burden on us that helps us stay in humility. We cannot do it all. Just as the early Christians were humbled by the persecutions and violence they endured, we also must have humility which this 'Cross' of all these traditions place on us. Yet, as you will discover as you walk this path, the Cross is at once our hardship and our joy. The Cross teaches us about God and ourselves. The traditions test us and push us to our limits.

Modern man wants what is easy but is also constantly beset with new sources of distress. He yearns for relief from his 'conveniences.' I remember the joke 30 years ago when computers were still being integrated in the workplace: 'yes, computers make our lives soooooooooooooo much easier.' We cannot live without them, yet the rush of technology has imposed a price that we find a hard time paying.

What the Gospel teaches us that the hard way, the narrow way, leads to freedom and happiness. It is counter-instinctual, but that does not make it any less true.

I've haven't had time yet to give it a thorough look. These sites seem to have more of the - very interesting and very useful - information about the continuity of liturgical worship from Heaven - Tabernacle - Temple - Synagogue - Church - Heaven (this is very simplified, of course). This is great stuff. But they still don't seem to deal with the questions of a genuine enquirer who reads their New Testament and says, "These guys met from house to house. They shared meals together. They were encouraged to participate by bringing songs and scripture readings along to share. Surely the biblical evidence shows that the NT church was very informal!"

... They shared meals together... Surely the biblical evidence shows that the NT church was very informal!"

Not every meal is an informal one; there are plenty of formal meals out there (Military balls, Robert Burns Night, weddings, feasts, ect). A meal is also a way to bring the community together (some Orthodox countries have meals immediately following service, and in the States we have a coffee hour, not sure what they have Down Under). So just because a meal is mentioned does not mean that everybody is meeting at the local fast food place and reading scripture.

As others have said, early Christians met in houses because they could not meet in the synagogues. Bu they also met in catacombs, a fact that is often overlooked by those Protestants that want to press the informal home bible study as the way early Christians did things.

Also, and more importantly from a Scriptural perspective, the book of Revelation, when opening up Heavens so we can see what goes on there, shows us, very clearly that Eternity is liturgical, or, better saying, Liturgy is Time bending to Eternity.

"the oldest theory, according to which the author of the Apocalypse reproduces in his work the liturgical act of the early Church,[26] even without insisting that the addition itself originates in the first century AD.; or, finally, if one endorses the more reliable theory that the Apocalypse is a determining factor for later liturgical self-conscience of the Church;[27] the bottom line in all these cases is that the Apocalypse is, or at least should be, the key to discover the real meaning of Christian liturgy and its relation to history."

Lots of good stuff there, Fabio. Thanks.

I've haven't had time yet to give it a thorough look. These sites seem to have more of the - very interesting and very useful - information about the continuity of liturgical worship from Heaven - Tabernacle - Temple - Synagogue - Church - Heaven (this is very simplified, of course). This is great stuff. But they still don't seem to deal with the questions of a genuine enquirer who reads their New Testament and says, "These guys met from house to house. They shared meals together. They were encouraged to participate by bringing songs and scripture readings along to share. Surely the biblical evidence shows that the NT church was very informal!"

You can answer "One of these guys wrote the book of Revelation" and then use the information in the article about it. And what John teaches us there about proper worship is not only what they did, but what God has revealed to him in vision, no less.

Did they meet at home? Of course. But they went to synagogues, they went to the Temple, they celebrated each and every feast. That they did even after the Pentecost for some time. And soon after the Temple was destroyed, God gave John a vision of what proper Liturgy should look like from that point on. It's not just a bunch of verses, it's an entire book and not just any book, but the one that opens up the Heavens for us to show us what's going on there. And... it's a Liturgy! People who would rather not be in Liturgical worships may find that the second option to what happens in Heaven may be more informal, but not as pleasant as they suspect...

The point is that formal worship and informal worship are not contradictory. They complement each other. I see the value of home-based Bible studies, of prayers that are not pre-made, of Christ-inspired art with no "canons" to set any limits. This *is* good *also*. I wouldn't expect a singer who converted to sing only Byzantine or Gregorian chants. I would though expect to see the new faith infuence his art somehow and I would hope that he could sing Byzantine/Gregorian chants properly and know when and why to do each. I don't see why people couldn't get together to do "modern" style worship if that's their cup of tea as long as they understand that that is not what God showed us in Revelations, that is not what is going on in Heaven and that does not substitute a Liturgy. It's *self* expression ("egophany" so to speak), and if there is love for God in the "self" to be expressed, great. But the Liturgy is about God-expression (theophany) into us. It's far, far deeper and God ordered.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 08:57:12 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

You can answer "One of these guys wrote the book of Revelation" and then use the information in the article about it. And what John teaches us there about proper worship is not only what they did, but what God has revealed to him in vision, no less.

What we see in the NT can be divided between what the Apostles did before the Pentecosts and after.

Did they meet at home? Of course. But they went to synagogues, they went to the Temple, they celebrated each and every feast. That they did even after the Pentecost for some time. And soon after the Temple was destroyed, God gave John a vision of what proper Liturgy should look like from that point on. It's not just a bunch of verses, it's an entire book and not just any book, but the one that opens up the Heavens for us to show us what's going on there. And... it's a Liturgy! People who would rather not be in Liturgical worships may find that the second option to what happens in Heaven may be more informal, but not as pleasant as they suspect...

Yes they did meet at homes, but the other point that should be made is: what did those house meetings look like? It wasn't a bunch of guys with guitars singing about Jesus as my boyfriend.

Also, be mindful that the catacomb worship was based on their cult of the martyred saints. This included serving liturgies on the tombs of the dead on the anniversaries of their deaths. The Romans thought they were disgusting for the way they handled and kissed the bones of the dead, and these were pagans, so we can't say that these were pagan influences.

Anyway, it definitely wasn't an informal smile-fest down amongst the tombs. It was solemn and holy (read:boring and dead "worship" in Evangelical-speak) and there were frescoes/icons all around the tombs (idols) with writing asking for the prayers of the departed saints beneath them (necromancy). I don't think that most informal advocated would feel very at home in the early church. But I think that the Orthodox, despite many variances in customs since that time, would immediately feel at home.

Have you ever read Clement of Rome (yes, that's a hint) and other Apostolic Fathers? Clement may not be NT, but he is definitely first century. The Didache is another good source that provides insight into early Christian worship.

Anyway, it definitely wasn't an informal smile-fest down amongst the tombs. It was solemn and holy (read:boring and dead "worship" in Evangelical-speak) and there were frescoes/icons all around the tombs (idols) with writing asking for the prayers of the departed saints beneath them (necromancy).

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Anyway, it definitely wasn't an informal smile-fest down amongst the tombs.

More evidence for my hijacking of Christianity by straight-lacedness thesis.

Define "straight-lacedness." Some would say a solemn liturgy is straight-lacedness.

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

Have you ever read Clement of Rome (yes, that's a hint) and other Apostolic Fathers? Clement may not be NT, but he is definitely first century. The Didache is another good source that provides insight into early Christian worship.

It's funny, I once saw Calvinist Phil Johnson site the Didache as proof positive that early Christians eschewed "ritualism."

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

Have you ever read Clement of Rome (yes, that's a hint) and other Apostolic Fathers? Clement may not be NT, but he is definitely first century. The Didache is another good source that provides insight into early Christian worship.

It's funny, I once saw Calvinist Phil Johnson site the Didache as proof positive that early Christians eschewed "ritualism."

Anyway, it definitely wasn't an informal smile-fest down amongst the tombs.

More evidence for my hijacking of Christianity by straight-lacedness thesis.

Define "straight-lacedness." Some would say a solemn liturgy is straight-lacedness.

A ritual blood feast (to quote CS Lewis) celebrated on the bodies of dead people (or parts thereof) is straight-laced?

I will start a thread on this soon, I promise, haha.

Ah, I see what you mean. I have seen a lot of resistance to the hijacking, such as a new Mel Gibson-esque emphasis on suffering in some circles (not to mention the wonders of Christian Metal).

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

Have you ever read Clement of Rome (yes, that's a hint) and other Apostolic Fathers? Clement may not be NT, but he is definitely first century. The Didache is another good source that provides insight into early Christian worship.

It's funny, I once saw Calvinist Phil Johnson site the Didache as proof positive that early Christians eschewed "ritualism."

Yeah but these are manly men in suits, not a bunch of pansies in dresses burning potpourri and kissing each other!

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

Have you ever read Clement of Rome (yes, that's a hint) and other Apostolic Fathers? Clement may not be NT, but he is definitely first century. The Didache is another good source that provides insight into early Christian worship.

It's funny, I once saw Calvinist Phil Johnson site the Didache as proof positive that early Christians eschewed "ritualism."

You mean the kind of mindset that thinks St. John was a homosexual because He leaned on Jesus' breast?

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

Have you ever read Clement of Rome (yes, that's a hint) and other Apostolic Fathers? Clement may not be NT, but he is definitely first century. The Didache is another good source that provides insight into early Christian worship.

It's funny, I once saw Calvinist Phil Johnson site the Didache as proof positive that early Christians eschewed "ritualism."

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

I am not accusing the Roman priesthood of effeminancy or anything, just commenting on how a certain kind of "culture" can be mistaken for Christianity properly so called, and any deviation from the norms of such culture is suddenly scandalous to those within it.

This is what I mean by hijacking of Christianity by conservative, straight-laced culture (just taking the hair and fashion choices of the Roman priesthood as an example, not anything determinative).

You mean the kind of mindset that thinks St. John was a homosexual because He leaned on Jesus' breast?

Indeed.

The same mindset that is behind such scriptural admonitions as "having a facial piercing is more abominable than committing the sin of anger", "any music other than the kind I like is the work of Satan" and "you should cut your hair if you're going to serve at the altar".

You mean the kind of mindset that thinks St. John was a homosexual because He leaned on Jesus' breast?

Indeed.

The same mindset that is behind such scriptural admonitions as "having a facial piercing is more abominable than committing the sin of anger", "any music other than the kind I like is the work of Satan" and "you should cut your hair if you're going to serve at the altar".

Mm.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 12:39:02 AM by Volnutt »

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

Leaving the fashion discussion to you guys, I think the formal vs. informal idea is a distinction without a difference. Even so-called "informal" services have a definite structure. I vaguely recall Fr. Peter Gilquist saying something to the effect that no matter how spontaneous they tried to be, the service always acquired a structure over time.

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

Definitely. Even the Quakers ("sit quietly and don't do anything till the Spirit tells you to. Don't interrupt, etc.")

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

Leaving the fashion discussion to you guys, I think the formal vs. informal idea is a distinction without a difference. Even so-called "informal" services have a definite structure. I vaguely recall Fr. Peter Gilquist saying something to the effect that no matter how spontaneous they tried to be, the service always acquired a structure over time.

This is very true. The structure I have noticed most - whether informal (non-denom, rock music) and formal (low church type) - is one of doing 3-5 songs/hymns, then a sermon that lasts roughly 45 minutes, then an altar call for repentance and conversion while a slow song is playing (thinking "Just As I Am"), then a happy benedictory song and everybody leaves to get on with their normal lives now that the church stuff is over with.

But there it is, structure. Even the non-denominational mega rock church that my wife and I attended (before I converted) that was extremely relaxed in dress and appearance (Chuck Taylors, blue jeans, t-shirts) had a similar structure as mentioned above - although they used their projector to its full benefit by having humorous and thoughtful videos (in context) up right before the sermon.

I can not really recall going to a Protestant church that broke from that structure (or one similar) - except maybe Lutheran or Episcopalian, but then I wasn't really paying attention to those two as I was much younger and spent my time drawing pictures of aliens and fighter planes in my bulletin.

Even the most chaotic Pentecostal service is this way. In the AoG churches I went to, there were always one or two people standing somewhere near the front seemingly in a trance, moaning and mumbling. Even if they started shouting, the pastor ignored them and went on with the sermon. If someone stood up and began "tongue talkin," we all waited patiently and then a few seconds after for the (rare) interpretation.

Even in TBN type environments which I've never personally been in, the rubric is, "Once a large group of people start holy rolling, just keep playing the music till they stop."

Or am I too broadly defining "order" at this point?

Logged

Quote

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!

The Didache (It is available on-line just google it) is generally accepted by protestants, Roman Catholics as well as Orthodox Christians as the pattern of worship that had devleoped by 75 a.d. in the early church. If you look at it with a current "Modern" copy of the Divine Liturgy, it is easy to see the pattern of worship is the same.

I am losing interest in some ways, mainly because I've listened to most of his other series and he's starting to go into loop for me.

I've heard every word he has pretty much uttered which has been recorded. I enjoy the repetition. But that is just me.

Fr. Thom will tell you that if you just listen to any two of his *seminars* you will get pretty much 90% of what he has to say.

Although, I have to say he definitely has had a development in his thought from the early 80s till now, whether he realizes it or not.

But I understand where you are coming from.

If I could find someone as captivating and informative I would work them more into the rotation. Most folks who ain't trained to talk for an hour at a time to a room filled with no one can't do it even OK.

I am losing interest in some ways, mainly because I've listened to most of his other series and he's starting to go into loop for me.

Oh yeah, another reason I am looking forward to this series is that he is going to try to really avoid the "symbolizing" of the DL and root it more directly in Scripture and "straight forward" Patristics.

The "symbolizing" of the DL, I've found to be rather lacking in increasing my poor understanding of it, even Fr. Alexander Schmemann's work still left a lot of holes in it for me.